Chula Vista council has not earned side pay
On Jan. 19, the Chula Vista City Council selected two people for the new Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation.
Residents looking for a sign that City Hall was going to start listening more to the community would have been disappointed. Neither of the two people selected, Christopher Rooney or Doug Paul, live in Chula Vista or are familiar with the community. Both are advocates of the city taking private property by eminent domain and giving that property to private developers to make a profit.
|
Write us
The San Diego Union-Tribune welcomes letters to the editor. Because of the number of letters received, and to allow as many readers as possible to be published, it is the policy of the newspaper to publish no more than one letter from the same author within 120 days. Letters may be edited. It is also our policy to publish letters supporting or opposing a particular issue in a ratio reflecting the number received on each side.
To be considered for publication, a letter must include an address, daytime phone number and, if faxed or mailed, be signed. It may be sent to Letters Editor, The San Diego Union-Tribune, Post Office Box 120191, San Diego, CA 92112-0191, faxed to (619) 260-5081 or e-mailed to
letters@uniontrib.com. Letters submitted may be used in print or in digital form in any publication or service authorized by the Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
|
|
The message is pretty obvious. So much for the 20-year vision. The City Council wants redevelopment (including eminent domain) and developer campaign contributions now, regardless of the social cost.
Citizens recently have been ripped off by the arrogant and greedy City Council that collected $35,250 in salary for serving on the new CVRC even though there they have no meetings and a director has not been hired yet. That $35,250 will look like peanuts compared to what property owners and business owners will lose through eminent domain when their properties are taken.
While reasonable people can differ on the appropriate use of eminent domain for redevelopment, it is interesting to note that the mayor asked the candidates for the CVRC to state their position on the issue, and then chose the candidates who articulated the strongest support for the city's use of eminent domain.
Is Chula Vista so hard up for money that we have to take people's property and their business?
What can you do? You can vote some of them out of office this June and November. If you aren't registered to vote, please sign up as soon as possible. You can call the county registrar of voters and they will mail you the form or you can pick up the form at many post offices or libraries.
MICHELLE REWERTS
Chula Vista
The mayor and council are asking the citizens to accept their lame justification of being paid a total of $35,250 for work done on behalf of the not-yet-functioning Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation. One reason they put forth is “They have reviewed applications, prepared for board member interviews, and hired a consultant group to find an executive to direct the board.”
It seems like a great deal of money for such small tasks in light of the mayor having a chief of staff and council members with full-time assistants.
The three council members who are up for re-election (Steve Padilla, John McCann, and Patricia Chavez) have to be removed from office and replaced by citizens with integrity supporting open government.
It's time we take back our city from those who put their personal agendas before the needs of the citizens.
JERRY SCOTT
Chula Vista
The mayor's handling of the CVRC appointments sends a clear message – the city is preparing for aggressive use of eminent domain as a tool for redevelopment. Public trust in Chula Vista government is at an all time low – largely due to a pattern of actions such as this designed to circumvent citizen input and decision making.
The mayor has resisted the public outcry for more participation at City Hall with the Españada project, the General Plan Update, the appointment process for the recent City Council vacancy, and most recently, with this decision to appoint nonresidents to serve on the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation over equally qualified residents.
Now comes word that the mayor plans a program to delay, confuse and prevent a prompt election on the ballot initiative that has been circulated to restrict the city's ability to use eminent domain on behalf of private developers. These efforts reportedly will include placing a competing measure on the ballot to confuse voters.
Eighty percent of Chula Voters do not support use of eminent domain for private development purposes. Fourteen thousand of those residents signed the petitions and have a right to vote without Mayor Padilla's interference.
DANIEL FRIES
Chula Vista
That the mayor and council should decide to pay themselves for “work” done on a not-yet-established board is just another example of the greed and arrogance that possesses these folks.
What and who triggered the inclusion of the $1,500 monthly amount in the mayor's pay packet and the $750 to the council members?
When exposed, these politicians scurried hither and yon looking for cover. At least Councilman Steve Castañeda says he earned it and won't give it back – infuriating arrogance, but not cowardice. Councilman Jerry Rindone must have felt guilty, as he wants to give it back and take an offset on future pay. Councilman John McCann did the right thing and returned his $6,000. The shuffling of feet and excuses remind me of the student caught not having completed his homework assignment.
The kicker is this: the CVRC was created by the mayor and council. Their work on the CVRC is not finished until the day that entity is up and running. Then and only then will they earn their CVRC pay.
VERENA FLEMING
Chula Vista
Change is opposed for National City
With regards to the editorial, “Trying times for a National City that is trying,” (South County, Jan. 26):
I have resided in National City since early in 1981. These new council hot dogs, to include the wannabe mayor, had election platforms along the lines of of “A New, Younger National City.” That refers to a previous mayor, George Waters, who had many successful years of managing National City.
Over the past few years I have attended the Tuesday evening council meetings, and have viewed on all occasions, that no matter who stepped up to the podium to speak, they were wasting their tim. The motor-mouthed council people had already made up their minds on deciding what they felt was in their best interest, not the National City citizens.
With regards to the city's “Trying times,” this all has been brought to National City via “A New, Younger National City” policies.
National City is unique with its small city atmosphere within a big city region. The council members believed that they could increase the value of their own properties by shoving their “New Younger” big city stuff upon the old and older National City residents.
Now that the new, younger city mayor and council have backed National City into the financial corner it is in, these comedians now want the “Old, Older National City” residents to bail them out.
Maybe the new, younger National City mayor should sell his squalid rental properties.
I, and many of my neighbors, will never vote in a new tax just to have the same scenario take place all over again down the road. Why give them a venue to maintain the same path of foolish city managing that has been going on for the past several years?
M.J. ARESTO
National City
Cities urged to reject use of eminent domain
Despite overwhelming public opposition to the use of eminent domain to transfer private property from one property owner to another private property owner, and citizen-sponsored ballot measures in both National City and Chula Vista designed to curb this power, city officials in neither city are willingly giving up their power to use eminent domain as they see fit.
Officials in National City last month initiated eminent domain proceedings to acquire several parcels to accommodate a developer who proposes a luxury condominium tower.
In Chula Vista, Mayor Steve Padilla has been gearing up for an aggressive eminent domain program. He asked prospective appointees for the city's new redevelopment board to state their opinions regarding eminent domain, and then chose the two candidates who most strongly supported the use of eminent domain.
The mayor claims that without eminent domain, redevelopment will be halted and our city's progress stopped. That's nonsense! Nearly all redevelopment occurs as a result of market forces, not eminent domain, and will continue in Chula Vista without condemnation of private property.
Why not embrace citizen input and provide real protections against eminent domain abuse? (That's what the mayor and City Council voluntarily did in Encinitas).
MATTHEW SISSON
Chula Vista
